The Resurrection is a Myth!

“If Christ has not been raised, you are still in your sins. And what is more serious, all who have died in Christ have perished. If our hope for Christ has been for this life only, we are the most unfortunate of all people.” (1 Cor. 15:17–19, NJB.)

“If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of the resurrection is not believable, and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the truth and authenticity of Jesus’ resurrection, also is not believable.” (Bishop John Shelby Spong.)

Elvis lives

The Romans crucified Jesus. That didn’t look good. The Gospel authors couldn’t have him just disappear after such a dreadful demise. They had to spruce up the story, because no one idolizes a loser. Jesus had to come back, just like a god was expected to. The Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysus, the Persian Mithras, and many others had all risen from the dead. Resurrection is a timeless theme; if a character was charismatic enough, people like to imagine he’s defeated death, even today. Consider Elvis Presley.

Christ’s resurrection “proved” his divinity; it meant he wasn’t another “also-ran.” It’s the central tenet of the faith, the one most important belief upon which Christianity is based. Mark’s gospel, the first to be written, and the one that the others copied, should’ve made a big deal about this exceptional event. Yet Mark only devotes the second half of his last chapter to the resurrection, as if it was tacked on like an afterthought. He has only twenty or so lines describing what many people presume was the premiere event in the world’s history. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16).

There are a few more odd facts about these verses. Their character and style seems out of place. At 16:9 there’s an apparent end to the narrative flow and the style loses its descriptive quality. Mary Magdalene is spoken of as if she hadn’t been mentioned before. What’s more, the appearance of a risen Jesus isn’t documented in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, the oldest Latin manuscript, the oldest Syriac manuscript, from about one hundred early Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written 897 CE and 913 CE.) In many other early texts that include verses 9–20, asterisks mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Moreover, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian, early third century commentators, are unaware that a resurrected Jesus appeared in Mark. Eusebius and Jerome are, but they’re fourth century commentators, and they note that A risen Jesus never appears to anyone in their earlier Greek transcripts.

The original author of Mark failed to mention that Jesus visited his followers after he was crucified! That’s one seriously important omission!

Verses16:9–20 was added to the end of Mark by an unknown author, a fact admitted by most contemporary New Testament scholars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16).

A footnote in the Jerusalem Bible states,

“The ‘long ending’ of Mark, vv.9–20, is included in the canonically accepted body of inspired scripture. This does not necessarily imply Markan authorship which, indeed, is open to question.

new catholicThe Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“Catholics are not bound to hold these verses (16:9–20) were written by Saint Mark.” The arrogant authors are assuming they can tell Catholics what to believe. They then make the following ridiculous claim as one of several possible explanations for the lack of a resurrection ending:

“If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more.” Imagine Mark sitting at his desk, pen poised, just about to create history by writing the final twenty lines of his epic when—oops—he dies! A trail of ink meanders off the page, and none of his readers were to find out who saw the risen Jesus until about 200 years later.

The encyclopedia continues:

“Whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.” They’re ordering their readers what to believe! To resort to special pleading demonstrates the weakness of their argument.

If Jesus’ original biographer failed to mention who he reappeared to and when, then obviously there was no resurrection. The fact that someone (probably in the early third century) could just add an ending to a Gospel, and (almost) get away with it, seriously undermines all the Gospel stories. Any obvious flaws in the texts could be just as easily doctored, just as happened here, and subsequent readers would be no wiser. Imagine the tailoring of sayings and events that went on when the original version of Mark was first put together.

Howdy!

Apologists, embarrassed by the obvious truth, often go to great lengths with wordy spiels about why they think the ending is authentic.

Most Church leaders who know about the interpolated ending don’t advertise it. They don’t want to compromise the faith of their flock, and that’s fraudulent.

The authors of the other Gospels included resurrection appearances.

They each gave different reports of events after the death of Jesus, because they didn’t have this part of Mark’s chronicle to copy, so each made up their own. Luke and John have the risen Jesus appearing in Jerusalem, far more prestigious than Galilee, which was believed to be a backward bad land, yet was where Mark suggests he will be hanging out. (see 16;7.) There are numerous other inconsistencies. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the four very different resurrection reports, with no success.

Matthew adds an earthquake and the corpses of holy men walking around Jerusalem.

“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 26;51-53, KJV.)

zombieJesus wasn’t the only Jew to rise from the dead! I wonder whether these walking corpses helped remove the rubble from the earthquake? Did they rejoin their relatives around the table? It might have been disturbing divvying up dinner to your dead half decayed dad!

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes this about the gospels:

“First of all, they commended themselves by their tone of simplicity and truthfulness, which stood in striking contrast with the trivial, absurd, or manifestly legendary character of many of those uncanonical productions.” I think they’re reading their canonical accounts with rose-colored glasses.

Jesus did have brothers, two of who, James and Jude, have probably written their own letters that ended up in the Bible. If one’s brother had risen from the dead, one would be elated and awestruck, but neither even mentions the fact.

5381449659_5e3330873e-1Paul believed in a resurrection, but this is how he got to know his risen Christ:

“Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me” (Gal. 1:15–16, NJB.) He was writing at least twenty years after Jesus died, and gave no description of God’s son. His experience wasn’t a physical reappearance of a dead Jesus, but one that emerged from his own imagination that he thought was inspired by God.

There’s no first-century secular writer who mentioned Jesus, let alone a risen Jesus. If a resurrected Jesus had appeared to as many people as claimed, contemporary historians would have shouted it from the rooftops, yet there’s not a word about it.

There are many reasons why millions of people today are convinced Jesus rose from the dead. Some mistakenly think eye-witnesses wrote the gospels, and that they’re factual biographies. Some commentators dissect the four accounts of the resurrection to try to reconcile them with each other (unsuccessfully,) as if that proved they were true.

never underestimateYet there are no reliable facts to prove the extraordinary claim that Jesus, or anyone else, rose from the dead. If a tale is told often enough, it takes on a life of its own, as can happen if a lot of other people believe too (argumentum ad numerum,) and that’s what’s happened here.

The truth is the believers have been duped.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6PWFvzKl3I).

 

if fifty

 

This entry was posted in About Jesus. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Resurrection is a Myth!

  1. Scott Morgan says:

    “The authors of the other Gospels included a resurrection. They each gave different reports of events after the death of Jesus, because they didn’t have this part of Mark’s chronicle to copy, so each made up their own. Matthew adds an earthquake and the corpses of holy men walking around Jerusalem.”

    Assuming the other authors borrowed from Mark, they did, at least, have Mark 16:1-8 to compare with. If you compare Mark’s details in those verses to similar passages in the other 3 gospels, you’ll notice peculiar differences, also.

    If the other 3 authors were simply borrowing from Mark and had to add post-resurrection information, why did they alter details already present in the original Mark (16:1-8)?

    • Mark Fulton says:

      Gospel authors, editors, and interpolators did whatever they thought was necessary to sell a good story. For example throughout the whole of Matthew the recipients of Jesus’ miracles were quite often double the number in Matthew compared to Mark. I don’t think they were particularly concerned there Gospels would be compared to others. They just wrote whatever they thought was attractive. The classic example, which I’ve already mentioned, is Matthew’s earthquake and zombie appearances, not mentioned by the other three authors.

      • Scott Morgan says:

        You said,
        “I don’t think they were particularly concerned there Gospels would be compared to others.”

        That’s a good point and I agree.

  2. Scott Morgan says:

    “There was no resurrection. It had to be added to Mark’s original gospel.”

    You say this based on the scholarly (both theistic and secular) assumption that the original Mark either stops at 16:8 or that the original ending has been lost.

    So lets just use Mark 16:1-8:
    Mary Magdalene and 2 other women show up at Jesus’s tomb to put spices on his body. When they arrived, they saw the large stone that had been blocking the entrance removed. When they walked inside, they encountered a young man in a white robe who first tries to calm them by saying, “Don’t be afraid.” He then says, “You’re looking for Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified. He is risen! . . . But go, tell his disciples and Peter ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ” Verse 8 leaves us with these trembling women fleeing the tomb and not saying anything because they were afraid.

    So the original text does, in fact, include the resurrection. Blatantly. The ending is abrupt, granted, and there is no further discourse from Jesus, but the telling of the resurrection is very well present. How did you fail to see this?

    • Mark Fulton says:

      Hi Scott, thank you for pointing this out, and yes, you are correct that versus 16 1-8 mention that Jesus had risen. I must admit I’m a little embarrassed that I missed that. I wrote this section of the book about four years ago and I hadn’t been back to recheck my facts so, so I’m very grateful to you for pointing it out. I will change the wording on this blog and in other sections of my book.

      I still think there’s a valid point to be made here… the original Jesus biography, at least the original canonical one, Mark, never made any mention of who Jesus appeared to! That is still an amazing omission, wouldn’t you agree?

      • Scott Morgan says:

        If the omission isn’t amazing, its at least worth noticing and fodder for skepticism. Personally, I think that the original ending was either lost OR Mark wasn’t able to finish. Here’s why:

        Notice how the original ends with verse 8:
        “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”

        This is a weird, enigmatic ending! I like this sort of conclusion to a fictional novel (which atheists obviously hold “Mark” to be fiction), but such novels generally have clever and mysterious twists during the story. Mark’s style of writing, however, is extraordinarily plain and linear; Jesus went here and then he went there; Jesus said this and then he said that; there was this miracle and then there was that miracle. Mark’s Jesus speaks in parables (which might be enigmatic) but Mark’s narration is simple. Based on the author’s writing style, I find such an ending highly unlikely–BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE. I can’t prove that this relatively simple man was trying to be witty at the end.

        • Mark Fulton says:

          I think you make a good point that the author(s) of Mark were rather simple men. The Gospels, and it particular Mark’s, are in my opinion embarrassingly simplistic. There is very little subtlety, nuance, depth, or analysis in them. They were written for simple and educated folks (not educated 21st century people.) Here is a brief “cut and paste”

          Why Were the Gospels Written?

          They were written to entice people to join a religious cult. They were value driven propaganda tools that integrated the theological, philosophical, and political ideals of the cult. Each Gospel was targeted at the people of the time, not for distant future generations. The Gospels were “proclaimed” in worship services to believers, to remind people of what they should believe.

          They’re not “historical” documents. A “Gospel” is the “good news,” (from the Greek “euangelion.”) Not “the news.” Not the “good news and the bad news.” Just the “good news.”

          Access to books was very limited and there was no mass media, so what the average person thought about the world was only what he’d learned from experience and what his parents and neighbors had told him, or maybe, if he was Jewish, what had been read to him from scripture. He had little or no understanding of science or reasoned critical thought, so believed in gods, ghosts, spirits, demons, witches, and the like. If there was sickness in a household, the local wizard or priest was called. It was an age in which myths were commonly considered truthful, and stories of magic and miracles were believed. Only some of the more educated people, who were relatively few in number, questioned belief in gods.

          Modern biographies are usually based on factual accounts of a person’s life. In contrast, many ancient authors told stylized life stories. Documenting the actual thoughts, words, and actions of the character was attempted, but to do it accurately wasn’t thought of as particularly important, as biographies were written primarily to create legends and promote moral messages.

          The authors and editors didn’t need to appeal to reason or common sense to sell their sort of story. The events they described, if they occurred at all, had happened decades earlier in another part of the world, and their audience had neither the means nor the inclination to check out the facts. What was important was to have written works appealing enough to compete with scores of other interesting cults so that an unsophisticated audience would be impressed. They wrote stylized biographies using the standards of the time. They may not have considered themselves dishonest, but judged by modern standards, they were.

          There was no such thing as a printing press, so in the first few hundred years of each Gospel’s existence, translators, editors, interpreters, and interpolators altered the original writings by adding or subtracting whatever they thought might be useful. So the dates that are commonly given for the authorship of each Gospel (ranging from 70 CE to 180 CE) are only of limited usefulness, as they can only be thought of only as when the first drafts were composed. (http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm). It was only in the later fourth century that the Gospels finished evolving.

          The best the historian can hope for is that the Gospels contain some snippets of real history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>